NIP after 16 Days - Pleading Not Guilty - Update

[Red Kite]

Thanks Peter. Any chance of posting more of the letter, though? Sentence on its own could mean anything.

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Red Kite said:

Thanks Peter. Any chance of posting more of the letter, though? Sentence on its own could mean anything.

You have PM

[Red Kite]

Cheers, Peter.

Need to know: Date NIP was issued/posted to you (e.g on 8th day following offence, or 12th day, or whatever).

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Red Kite said:

Cheers, Peter.

Need to know: Date NIP was issued/posted to you (e.g on 8th day following offence, or 12th day, or whatever).

IIRC, (without digging out my file) day 5. Remember there were national postal strikes at the time.

[Red Kite]

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Red Kite said:

Cheers, Peter.

Need to know: Date NIP was issued/posted to you (e.g on 8th day following offence, or 12th day, or whatever).

IIRC, (without digging out my file) day 5. Remember there were national postal strikes at the time.

Which is why its important. In fact, its your only hope. The only way you can be successful in this now, is to ascertain which day it was sent on, obtain a letter of confirmation from Royal Mail, describing the strike action dates, and, thereby prove that it was unreasonable of them to have expected that the notice would reach you in time.

ETA. Basically, whats happened is: Although the court is satisfied as to the date you received it, they are also still satisfied that it was served correctly. You haven't addressed the issue of whether it was or it wasn't.

Edited by Red Kite on Thursday 25th December 12:08

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Red Kite said:

Basically, whats happened is: Although the court is satisfied as to the date you received it, they are also still satisfied that it was served correctly. You haven't addressed the issue of whether it was or it wasn't.

Check out my defence which i have emailed you. I believe the "serving" issue has been dealt with, and the CPS confirmed so by saying it was only the date i received it that had to be dealt with in Court.

Furthermore, the Judge made no reference to any doubt in that area. He basically said that whilst i was most likely correct in law, that i was guilty anyway.

Had he looked at nothing but the evidence required, and the evidence i provided, he would have had no choice in his decision, which is why i am appealing.

Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Thursday 25th December 12:17

[Red Kite]

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Red Kite said:

Basically, whats happened is: Although the court is satisfied as to the date you received it, they are also still satisfied that it was served correctly. You haven't addressed the issue of whether it was or it wasn't.

Check out my defence which i have emailed you. I believe the "serving" issue has been dealt with, and the CPS confirmed so by saying it was only the date i received it that had to be dealt with in Court.

Furthermore, the Judge made no reference to any doubt in that area. He basically said that whilst i was most likely correct in law, that i was guilty anyway.

Had he looked at nothing but the evidence required, and the evidence i provided, he would have had no choice in his decision, which is why i am appealing.

Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Thursday 25th December 12:17

YHM

[Funk]

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.

This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.

They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Funk said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.

This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.

They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.

I agree totally. He basically told me i was a smart arse in a fast car. He tried so hard to get the CPS to argue with my legal defence, but they repeated to him seversl times it was irrebuttable.

What i fail to understand, is if i am so smart, is it not likely i will appeal??

[Red Kite]

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Funk said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.

This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.

They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.

I agree totally. He basically told me i was a smart arse in a fast car. He tried so hard to get the CPS to argue with my legal defence, but they repeated to him seversl times it was irrebuttable.

What i fail to understand, is if i am so smart, is it not likely i will appeal??

Peter. You haven't supplied me with the dates.

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Red Kite said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Funk said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.

This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.

They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.

I agree totally. He basically told me i was a smart arse in a fast car. He tried so hard to get the CPS to argue with my legal defence, but they repeated to him seversl times it was irrebuttable.

What i fail to understand, is if i am so smart, is it not likely i will appeal??

Peter. You haven't supplied me with the dates.

I'm frying stuffing balls!

[Red Kite]

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Red Kite said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Funk said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.

This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.

They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.

I agree totally. He basically told me i was a smart arse in a fast car. He tried so hard to get the CPS to argue with my legal defence, but they repeated to him seversl times it was irrebuttable.

What i fail to understand, is if i am so smart, is it not likely i will appeal??

Peter. You haven't supplied me with the dates.

I'm frying stuffing balls!

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Red Kite said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Red Kite said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Funk said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.

This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.

They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.

I agree totally. He basically told me i was a smart arse in a fast car. He tried so hard to get the CPS to argue with my legal defence, but they repeated to him seversl times it was irrebuttable.

What i fail to understand, is if i am so smart, is it not likely i will appeal??

Peter. You haven't supplied me with the dates.

I'm frying stuffing balls!

Hey! It's not an easy job you know! They keep falling apart and they burn easily! (Trying to convince other half i'm taking my responsibilites seriously)

[Red Kite]

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Red Kite said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Red Kite said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Funk said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.

This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.

They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.

I agree totally. He basically told me i was a smart arse in a fast car. He tried so hard to get the CPS to argue with my legal defence, but they repeated to him seversl times it was irrebuttable.

What i fail to understand, is if i am so smart, is it not likely i will appeal??

Peter. You haven't supplied me with the dates.

I'm frying stuffing balls!

Hey! It's not an easy job you know! They keep falling apart and they burn easily! (Trying to convince other half i'm taking my responsibilites seriously)

Whats a fried stuffing ball, anyway? Isn't stuffing meant to be in the turkey?

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Red Kite said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Red Kite said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Red Kite said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Funk said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.

This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.

They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.

I agree totally. He basically told me i was a smart arse in a fast car. He tried so hard to get the CPS to argue with my legal defence, but they repeated to him seversl times it was irrebuttable.

What i fail to understand, is if i am so smart, is it not likely i will appeal??

Peter. You haven't supplied me with the dates.

I'm frying stuffing balls!

Hey! It's not an easy job you know! They keep falling apart and they burn easily! (Trying to convince other half i'm taking my responsibilites seriously)

Whats a fried stuffing ball, anyway? Isn't stuffing meant to be in the turkey?

Fried stuffing balls are balls of stuffing fried

I am reliably informed that the turkey was filled with chestnut stuffing, and i was frying sage and onion stuffing...

Red Kite - YHM

[crackthatoff]

load of arse,good luck !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Andy Zarse]

Peter, any news on appeal dates, developements of note etc?

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Andy Zarse said:

Peter, any news on appeal dates, developements of note etc?

Appeal was supposed to have been Wednesday this week, but Court phoned 4pm Tuesday to adjourn 'til Feb 27th.

[chr15b]

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Andy Zarse said:

Peter, any news on appeal dates, developements of note etc?

Appeal was supposed to have been Wednesday this week, but Court phoned 4pm Tuesday to adjourn 'til Feb 27th.

that's just plain rude. this is hardly a complex case, imagine if an hour before close of business on the day before you phoned and said "nah, cant be bothered"

i still say it's the courts that let us down most in this country

[peterguk V6 KWK]

chr15b said:

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Andy Zarse said:

Peter, any news on appeal dates, developements of note etc?

Appeal was supposed to have been Wednesday this week, but Court phoned 4pm Tuesday to adjourn 'til Feb 27th.

that's just plain rude. this is hardly a complex case, imagine if an hour before close of business on the day before you phoned and said "nah, cant be bothered"

i still say it's the courts that let us down most in this country

Agreed. Worse still, my witness had already booked the day off, so i had to reimburse him for nothing!